Jump to content

CCD vs CMOS: Can you tell which is which?{merged}


dfarkas

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After reading a lot of comments debating the merits of CCD vs CMOS (M9 vs M240), I decided to do a comparison of the two cameras. I shot with both at the same time, using the same settings and same lenses. I then used Lightroom to do a rough match of the images using only global slider adjustments. No Photoshop. No adjustment brushes or any other local adjustments.

 

As a final step, I now welcome everyone to take a look and vote on each set of images (there are 19 sets total) to see if you can tell which was taken with the M9.

 

The Great Debate: CCD vs. CMOS - Part 1

 

After amassing enough votes, I will post a follow-up, revealing the answers and how everyone did.

 

At the very least, I think it will be a good exercise to see if we can really see "The CCD Look".

 

Thanks for your help in my little experiment!

 

 

David

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David. What profiles did you use when importing the raws into LightRoom?

 

I used my standard import presets for each camera, which use Embedded for M240 and Adobe Standard for M9. Why use different ones?

 

In my regular course of processing, these were the profiles that worked best for the respective cameras. Embedded for M9 is extremely inaccurate, with Adobe Standard being a vast improvement. There isn't as much difference between Embedded and Adobe Standard for the M240. In most cases, I prefer the look of Embedded, but sometimes portraits benefit from the slightly different color rendition of Adobe Standard. For these test images I didn't mess with different profiles for different images.

 

Hope that clears things up a bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you David for all your effort in creating this camera comparison of the M9 and the M240 sensors. As my subject matter is mostly portraits, I wish there was just one example comparing closeup portraits and how each camera renders flesh tones.

 

I have a couple portraits for Part 2..... stay tuned. ;)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a comparison of the IR leakage of both cameras. An image taken with each camera of a Wii light bar or Infrared remote control should give a good indication.

 

I felt that the theory I was testing was to see if there was a definitive "CCD Look" that could only be achieved on a CCD sensor, or if it is possible to use simple post processing to get the same look from CMOS.

 

While I am certainly curious as to IR leakage on different cameras (more than just the M240 and M9), I think it would be the subject of a different test.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, my own experience was that I could make M240 files look exactly like M9's. I kept both of them for a month before selling M9. However I did find a difference in pixel level sharpness. M9 needed almost no sharpness and M240 needed a "little" to match unprocessed M9's. But on web size this difference will not be visible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do see the point, in a way. For me after a glass of wine and an old iPad, I think nearly all M9 shots are image 1

 

After a few glasses of wine and a 27" iMac, I think I saw a few that were more likely to be M9 (they looked less flat ..... and typically my vote seemed to match the majority for those ones), but for others I was really guessing and couldn't see any clear difference at all.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a big thread here debating that CCD is superior to CMOS although I don't think this is a direct response to the thread. I personally think there is a difference between how the M9 and M file behaves but if you process them to look similar its really hard to tell the difference.

 

 

what an unusual post...

you may have considered including a nikon d40 for example as on the web no person can judge better, worse, best.

 

Print is the ultimate test isn't it?

 

Not wanting to be negative but what is the purpose of this?

 

andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

When evaluating images, if all we have are monitor presentations then it is a waste. Monitor presentations on a web page are already compromised, unless perhaps they contain a color profile and the browser (Safari, for example) considers it.

.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, most of my guesses were in the majority. Even at small size some difference may be apparent. This is quite interesting. A deeper blue, more vivid red, higher contrast -- possibly -- despite finagling the sliders in PP. I'll look forward to see the answers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but this obviates the entire point. The 'rough match' compromises the output of both sensors.

 

My goal was to see if there was a "CCD Look" that was unattainable, even with processing. This has been the assertion from those favoring CCD sensors. So, I wanted to see how close I could come to matching the corrected output from an M9.

 

I see very little value in comparing uncorrected images. I don't even look at default out-of-camera images in LR. I apply my presets for different cameras with adjustments dialed in for tone, color and sharpening on import. This leaves me with very little correction to achieve the final look that I find pleasing and allows for easier selection of images as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...